It's a mixture of series and books and it's focused largely on Things Wot People Read Recently. That's always the problem with lists like these. It's all comparing books that aren't alike - e.g. Feist's Daughter of the Empire with Gaiman's American Gods - so it's not like these books are being judged by the same criteria.

I'd base a "Best Fantasy Books" list on how influential or popular a series has been, and what impact it's had. So I'd have The Hobbit, Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser and so on because those books have inspired countless writers and readers alike.

I wouldn't put Rothfuss on there (ohmahglobshe'satitagain) for instance, because it's too early to tell what impact he's had and whether the success of Kvothe is going to stick or not, and on top of that there've been two books in his series (out of three?) so it might be similar to Canavan's Black Magician trilogy in which the third book is a steaming pile relative to the first two. Martin, however, has released 5 in his (which expands to 7 in the UK, possibly more overseas) and it's been a success since the start, as far as I'm aware.

My problem is that it seems to concentrate on one kind of fantasy, heroic/epic/Tolkeinian/whatever-we're-calling-it-this-week. No Bradbury? No Leiber? No Le Guin? No Lord Dunsany? Those are gaping omissions. Also, extract Tolkien, Peake and Donaldson and apparently there was no fantasy written before about 1990.

No offense, but Loerwyn, your statements contradict each other. In one sentence you speak to which Series/Book has the greatest impact should be higher ranked, and in another you say The Hobbit over LOTR? While some may agree The Hobbit is a better read, you cannot deny LOTR has had the greatest impact in the history of impacts, as far as fantasy literature is concerned. Also in these rankings I consider the book to be the series. For example "The Blade Itself" is #2, so I would consider "First Law" to be #2, and they are just mentioning the first book of that series. I'd hope so anyways...

I can't agree with the whole list. But if you were recommending books to newcomers, I would strongly urge to follow this list. (Not the public version) I believe the Top5 there represents what many nowadays consider to be the top5...or at least very close.

I think some people around here, no names, are just simply book snobs. And think if it doesn't have an expert prose or amazing style it's not worthy. I can't argue much as I am very much a Beer Snob(Budweister vs A Belgium Creme Ale? Comon now.) But people like what they like. This isn't a rank of the best writers....

No offense, but Loerwyn, your statements contradict each other. In one sentence you speak to which Series/Book has the greatest impact should be higher ranked, and in another you say The Hobbit over LOTR? While some may agree The Hobbit is a better read, you cannot deny LOTR has had the greatest impact in the history of impacts, as far as fantasy literature is concerned. Also in these rankings I consider the book to be the series. For example "The Blade Itself" is #2, so I would consider "First Law" to be #2, and they are just mentioning the first book of that series. I'd hope so anyways...

Click to expand...

Would we have The Lord of the Rings without The Hobbit? Would the story of The Lord of the Rings have happened without The Hobbit, both in terms of the internal world and also Tolkien's life? Do most people read The Hobbit first or The Lord of the Rings?

I think it's quite easy to construct an argument for The Hobbit being the more important - not necessarily the more popular - book.

As for the Book/Series thing - the list contained books that are parts of series (e.g. A Game of Thrones) and some series (e.g. a mislabelled Farseer Trilogy). You have either one or the other. Mixing both makes it much more complex, because you'll be comparing 200-300 page novels at times with series that are thousands of pages long (e.g. A Song of Ice & Fire and Wheel of Time), and rarely is a series consistent from book one to the final one. Just look how many people love the early WoT books but fell off or dislike the 7-9th (roughly) volumes for proof of what I mean.

Would we have The Lord of the Rings without The Hobbit? Would the story of The Lord of the Rings have happened without The Hobbit, both in terms of the internal world and also Tolkien's life? Do most people read The Hobbit first or The Lord of the Rings?

I think it's quite easy to construct an argument for The Hobbit being the more important - not necessarily the more popular - book.

As for the Book/Series thing - the list contained books that are parts of series (e.g. A Game of Thrones) and some series (e.g. a mislabelled Farseer Trilogy). You have either one or the other. Mixing both makes it much more complex, because you'll be comparing 200-300 page novels at times with series that are thousands of pages long (e.g. A Song of Ice & Fire and Wheel of Time), and rarely is a series consistent from book one to the final one. Just look how many people love the early WoT books but fell off or dislike the 7-9th (roughly) volumes for proof of what I mean.

Click to expand...

Yes that could be a lively debate. =)

For the series you do have a point. I was speaking more to the 'pre-made' list not the public one. They combined some series and some left with just the first book. In my opinion they did this so it would be more recognizable. Game of Thrones vs A Song of Ice and Fire...or Gardens of the Moon vs Malazan Book of the Fallen....etc. I doubt if you went further than 25 you would run into Game of Thrones as #2 and Storm of Swords as #27...if that was the case then I would hasten to dismiss this whole list as ridiculous. =)

Eh.I think it needs some major re-working.I mean where's the Elric Saga, The Dark Tower, The original Conan stories, The Fafrd and the Grey Mouser series, The Earth Sea saga (I take issue with some of the world building, but it is influential), and Kushiel's Legacy? Some of this is based on influence, others are based on personal opinion that I have listed here.

Just look how many people love the early WoT books but fell off or dislike the 7-9th (roughly) volumes for proof of what I mean.

Click to expand...

7-10

Because Crossroads of Twilight is most definitely the worst in the series. I still enjoyed it the first time, though.

I don't really like the list. I would have expected to see books by Guy Gavriel Kay, Le Guin, Leiber, Zelazny, etc. over books such as Way of Kings, Dresden Files, or Prince of Thorns (no offense, Mark). I understand that the list is trying to include both classics and newer series, but it seems to lean too heavily in favour of the new. To each their own, I guess.

Harry Potter? Silly? Perhaps, but it's impact in terms of popularity and culture is still felt even now the films are over. It got thousands, if not millions, of people reading and interested in fiction, so I think on some levels Harry Potter can easily be argued for.

Twilight? Its sole merit is it got people reading. The rest of it can go burn in a fire for all I care.

I can't agree with the whole list. But if you were recommending books to newcomers, I would strongly urge to follow this list. (Not the public version) I believe the Top5 there represents what many nowadays consider to be the top5...or at least very close.

Click to expand...

Depends on the newcomer. Some would be far more impressed by LOTR or Bradbury or Leiber or Beagle or Le Guin or ...

I think some people around here, no names, are just simply book snobs.

Click to expand...

Possibly. I do know what I like and have occasionally spoken up to defend it or at least suggest it is worthy of attention ... Oh, wait! That's what you're doing, too!

You book snob, you!!

And think if it doesn't have an expert prose or amazing style it's not worthy. I can't argue much as I am very much a Beer Snob(Budweister vs A Belgium Creme Ale? Comon now.) But people like what they like. This isn't a rank of the best writers....

Click to expand...

If you say you've created a list of the 25 best you need to state your criteria: and when you introduce the list by saying, "The goal of this list is to present a broad selection of the best fantasy literature from different fantasy subgenres -- cult hits, best sellers, critically acclaimed, and classics," you should provide a list that has a broad scope. The items on this list seem very narrow in scope, very little outside epic/heroic fantasy and its nearest cousins. Urban fantasy, mythic fantasy aren't very well represented. Frankly, the "Best Literary Fantasy" and "Great Fantasy Books" strike me as far more representative of fantasy as a whole, and of the better works written within the genre.

By the way, I prefer porters, stouts and ales, though I don't think I'm all that picky. My recent favorite is a Polish porter, Zywiec. Smooth as caramel or silk or caramel silk and for those of us who don't really drink a lot, it has a kick like a goat.

1) Lord of the Rings by Tolkien
2) Book of the New Sun by Wolfe
3) Gormenghast by Peake
4) Elric of Melnibone by Moorcock
5) Ficciones by Borges
6) Dying Earth by Vance
7) Conan the Barbarian by Howard
8) Earthsea by Le Guin
9) Little, Big by Crowley
10) Chronicles of Amber by Zelazny
11) Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever by Donaldson
12) Perdido Street Station by Mieville
13) Song of Ice and Fire by Martin
14) Discworld by Pratchett
15) At the Mountains of Madness by Lovecraft
16) Worm Ouruboros by Eddison
17) Harry Potter by Rowling
18) Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser by Leiber
19) Mists of Avalon by Bradley
20) Chronicles of Narnia by Lewis
21) Memory, Sorrow and Thorn by Williams
22) Well at World's End by Morris
23) Black Company by Cook
24) King of Elfland's Daughter by Dunsany
25) American Gods by Gaiman